Ethics & Policies


Each manuscript in MEJAST has its own record containing identification number, and important dates - when it was received, reviewed, accepted/rejected, and published.

(1) As soon as the manuscript was submitted the editors are obliged to.

(2) Check whether criteria for the submission of the manuscript were met.

(3) Inform authors that the manuscript was received and sent for evaluation quoting approximately time for the results of evaluation.

(4) Send the manuscript for peer review.


Peer review

Peer review is a critical element in the editorial process of MEJAST. The evaluation of manuscript is susceptible to various misconducts and majority of authors' complaints relate to peer review process. Therefore, editors will establish the process for the evaluation of manuscript. The main goals of our peer review are to provide expert advice to the authors regarding the scientific validity of the data and methods, and help the editors in their decision about the suitability of the paper for publication. Editors may accept manuscripts without outside review if they find the subject is very important or timely. They also may reject the manuscript without outside review if the quality of the manuscript is poor, the subject matter is outside the purview of the journal, or criteria for the submission of the manuscript are not met.



The list of authors should accurately reflect who carried out the research and who wrote the article. All multi-authored papers should include an ‘Authors’ Contributions’ section at the end of the paper. The list of authors should correspond to the following criteria. Authors must meet all 4 of these conditions:

(1) Substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data.

(2) Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.

(3) Final approval of the version to be published.

(4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


Competing interests

All authors, referees and editors must declare any conflicting or competing interests relating to a given article. Competing interests are defined as those that, through their potential influence on behaviour or content or from perception of such potential influences, could undermine the objectivity, integrity or perceived value of publication.

They may include:

Employment – recent, current and anticipated by any organisation that may gain or lose financially through publication.

Sources of funding – research support by any organisation that may gain or lose financially through publication

Personal financial interests – stocks and shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication; consultation fees or other forms of remuneration from organisations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication

Membership of relevant organisations - Having a personal relationship with any of the authors (if you are an editor or referee) or an editor, including a guest editor of a theme issue or special feature.


Sources of funding

Funding received for the work described in the paper or for the publication itself, for all authors, must be declared within the publication. Examples of funding are:

Research funds – the source and any grant numbers should be included in a funding section at the end of the paper

Funding of the article processing charge for an open access article – this should be included in the acknowledgements section

Funding for writing, language editing or editorial assistance – this should be included in the acknowledgements section.


Redundant publication

It is important to ensure that research work is only published once. If it is published more than once, the scientific literature can be unjustifiably weighted by the appearance that one study has been replicated. It might also mean that the study is inadvertently entered twice into a meta-analysis, for example, or cause problems in systems which use the number of publications to assess an individual’s or an institute’s research output.

Duplication of a published article or major overlap/redundancy with another published article is not acceptable. When this is identified we will follow appropriate MEJAST guidelines and consider publishing a notice of redundant publication.

Minor overlap or a small amount of redundancy may be unavoidable. This must always be reported transparently and be properly attributed and compliant with copyright requirements.


Editorial Decision-Making

Editor shall establish a system for deciding on the fate of the manuscript: whether it will be accepted, accepted after appropriate revision or be rejected. Criteria for decision making include the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the availability of space, but the most important are the editor's.

judgment regarding the suitability of the manuscript for the journal and its value and interest for the readers. Editors' decision to accept or reject the manuscript submitted for publication shall rely mainly on the reviewer's comments and suggestions. The editor always communicates their decisions to authors. They may provide explanations for the decision independently of the reviewer's comments. Additional problems may arise when a revision of the manuscript is sought. Generally, editor shall actively encourage revision of the manuscripts. Sometimes the comments of the reviewers are contradictory. Then, editor shall decide which comments are essential, may add their own suggestion for revision, and give advice to authors which comments should be followed. Potentially acceptable manuscripts that need major revision or additional data shall be rejected. However, editor shall suggest to authors to resubmit the manuscript. When this is done, editor shall precisely explain how to make corrections of the manuscript to meet acceptance criteria, or as an alternative, editor may help the authors to improve manuscript to make it acceptable for publication. Revised manuscripts shall be evaluated by the editors themselves and shall not be returned to reviewers or sent to new reviewers.

Reasons for manuscript rejection may include scientific weakness, lack of originality, lack of importance and interest to readers or lack of space. Editor shall consider appeals of authors regarding rejection of the manuscript only if authors provide a good explanation why decision may have been wrong, and if they are willing to revise the manuscript in response to reviewers' righteous comments. If the authors resubmit previously rejected but not revised manuscript, editor shall immediately reject it. However, editor may agree to reconsider rejected manuscript. A revised manuscript shall be evaluated by an original reviewer or be sent to one or two new reviewers. As an alternative, editor may consider the manuscript as a new one and send it to be reviewed by new reviewers. Editors shall not make decisions on manuscripts about which they may have conflict of interest.